Gittin 30

הוא ואחר מעידין על חתימת יד שני פסול מאי טעמא אתו לאיחלופי בקיום שטרות דעלמא וקא נפיק נכי ריבעא דממונא אפומא דחד סהדא

if the bearer and another person confirm the signature of the second witness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., declare that they know this to be his signature. ');">¹</span>

מתקיף לה רב אשי מי איכא מידי דאילו מסיק ליה איהו לכוליה דיבורא כשר השתא דאיכא חד בהדיה פסול

[the Get] is invalid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In spite of the fact that if the bearer testifies alone, it is valid. ');">²</span>

אלא אמר רב אשי אפילו אומר אני הוא עד שני פסול מאי טעמא או כולו בקיום הגט או כולו בתקנת חכמים

because this might be taken as a precedent for the attestation of other documents, and in this way three-quarters<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'deducting a fourth'. ');">³</span>

תנן בפני נכתב כולו בפני נחתם חציו פסול אידך חציו היכי דמי אילימא דליכא דקא מסהיד עליה כלל השתא אחד אומר בפני נכתב ואחד אומר בפני נחתם דהאי קמסהיד אכולה כתיבה והאי קמסהיד אכולה חתימה פסול חציו מיבעיא

of a sum in dispute might be assigned on the word of one witness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a document is brought into court signed by two witnesses, A and B, of whom B is dead, and if A together with a third party attests the signature of B, then if money were to be awarded on the strength of that document, three-quarters of it would be awarded on the evidence of the one witness A, which is against the rule, as each witness must be responsible for a half, v. Keth. 21b. ');">⁴</span>

אלא או כדרבא או כדרב אשי

R. Ashi strongly demurred to this [reasoning]. Is there anything. he said, which if stated by one persons is valid, but becomes invalid if another joins with him? No, said R. Ashi, what we have to say is that even if the bearer Says. 'I myself am the second witness', [the Get] is invalid, because in regard to both signatures alike we must either insist on confirmation or follow the regulation of the Rabbis.

ולאפוקי מדרב חסדא

We learnt: [IF HE DECLARES.] 'THE WHOLE WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE BUT ONLY ONE WITNESS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', THE GET IS INVALID. What now about the other witness? Do we presume that there is no-one who attests his signature? That cannot be; for even where one [person declares] IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE' AND ANOTHER SAYS 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', in which case one testifies to the whole of the writing and the other to the whole of the signing [ — even in that case the Get] is invalid; how much more so then if only half [of the signing is attested]? No; this shows that the proper explanation is either that of Raba or of R. Ashi, and that R. Hisda's is to be excluded.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah quoted above ('if he says the whole was written in my presence but only one witness signed in my presence') has just been shown to be superfluous, and we are therefore entitled to infer some lesson from it. That inference, however, should be restricted to a minimum, and therefore the opinions of Raba and R. Ashi are preferable to that of R. Hisda. ');">⁵</span>

אמר לך רב חסדא ולטעמיך בפני נכתב אבל לא בפני נחתם ל"ל אלא לא זו אף זו קתני

And R. Hisda? — He can rejoin: On your theory,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an apparent superfluity must be made the basis of some lesson. ');">⁶</span>

הכא נמי לא זו אף זו קתני

what need is there to specify the case of 'in my presence it was written but not signed' [etc.]? Obviously the Mishnah was giving first a weaker and then a stronger instance;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not only this (but) also this'. I.e., first 'in my presence it was not signed (at all)', and then 'in my presence only one witness signed', the first case being contained in the second. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רב חסדא גידוד חמשה ומחיצה חמשה אין מצטרפין עד שיהא או כולו במחיצ' או כולו בגידוד

so here, the Mishnah gives first a weaker and then a stronger instance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' First where one attests the writing and the other the signatures, and then where one signature is left unattested. ');">⁸</span>

דרש מרימר גידוד חמשה ומחיצה ה' מצטרפין והלכתא מצטרפין

R. Hisda said: An embankment five handbreadths deep and a fence [on it] five handbreadths high are not reckoned together [to form a single partition of ten handbreadths];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So as to enclose a space which can be considered as 'private domain' for the purposes of transportation on Sabbath. ');">⁹</span>

בעי אילפא ידים טהורות לחצאין או אין טהורות לחצאין היכי דמי אילימא דקא משו בי תרי מרביעית והא תנן מרביעית נוטלין לידים לאחד ואפי' לשנים

the whole of the ten must be contained either in the embankment or in the fence. Meremar, however, in an exposition, [taught] that an embankment of five handbreadths and a fence on it of five handbreadths are reckoned together; and the law is that they are reckoned together.

ואלא דקא משי חדא חדא ידיה והתנן הנוטל ידו אחת בנטילה ואחת בשטיפה ידיו טהורות

Ilfa inquired: Can the hands be half clean and half unclean, or can they not be? How is this question to be understood? Does it mean that two persons wash their hands from a revi'ith?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A quarter of a log, about 1 1/2 eggs; the minimum required for the ritual washing of the hands before meals. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואלא דקא משי פלגא פלגא דידיה והאמרי דבי ר' ינאי ידים אין טהורות לחצאין לא צריכא דאיכא משקה טופח

Regarding this we have already learnt that a revi'ith is sufficient for washing the hands of one [person] and even of two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Naz. 382. Yad. I, 2. ');">¹¹</span>

וכי איכא משקה טופח מאי הוי והתנן

Is the case then that he washes one hand at a time? In regard to this too we have learnt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yad. II, 1. ');">¹²</span> that if a man washes one hand by pouring water over it and the other by dipping [it in a river] the hands are clean. Is it then that he washes a half of his hand at a time? Regarding this it has been laid down in the school of R. Jannai that the hands cannot be made clean by halves. — The question may still be asked in regard to the case where the water is still dripping [from one hand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it is possible still to regard the hands as being washed together. ');">¹³</span> when he washes the second]. And suppose the water is dripping, what does it matter? Have we not learnt: